Emotionitis hurts health care debate.

• Author: Singleton, Marilyn M.
• Position: Political Landscape

Today's political debates are extremely polarized and emotional. One person's charming, clever, and assertive is another's manipulative, cunning, and ruthless. Consider the opposing perspectives on some of the most Important issues:

* Did the politician lie or merely misspeak?

* Is the National Security Agency perpetrating an obscene Invasion of privacy or deploying a crucial tool against terrorism?

* Is supporting voter identification laws resurrecting Jim Crow or ensuring legitimate votes are not diluted by fraudulent ones?

* Do Federal regulations stifle business and entrepreneurship or do they ensure Americans' safety?

* Why is It racist to disagree with the policies of Pres. Barack Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder, but reasonable to disagree with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

* Why Is Interest in the possible long-term effects of Hillary Clinton's brain concussion intrusive, sexist, and unfair, but delving Into Sarah Palin's medical records to determine if she actually had given birth to her new baby Is manifestly valid?

* Have you cornered the market on compassion if you believe Medicaid provides good health care, or are you a heartless subhuman If you believe Medicaid traps lower Income Individuals in a two-tiered health system?

In 1880, William James--a Harvard University physician, philosopher, and "father of psychology"--observed, "As a rule we disbelieve all the facts and theories for which we have no use. A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."

To analyze why we cement our beliefs In the face of contrary facts, psychologist Leon Festinger proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance: people seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions because it is uncomfortable to have inconsistent ideas. For example, you like Pres. Obama, so how can you dislike ObamaCare? One unconscious mechanism we use to ignore facts Is "motivated reasoning." Here, we process information such that the Influence of our beliefs outweighs new facts In forming seemingly reasonable conclusions. In other words, our brain's goal Is not accuracy, but defense of beliefs.

Adding to the difficulty in changing our minds, we tend toward "confirmation bias," i.e., listening only to those who confirm our preconceptions. Another psychological tool Is post-purchase rationalization. Anyone who bought a hot-off-the-shelf Betamax knows what that is.

An Emory...